Unable to Post Bail? You Will Pay for That for Many Years - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/cash-bail-system-reform.html <comment><USER3> This is a very interesting data driven article that will make you depressed. I recommend it.

> Technological solutions, like electronic anklets that monitor an > individual's whereabouts, are another option. Even sending text-message > reminders to show up in court makes it more likely that a defendant will do > so. All these options are cheaper than incarceration.

I hope this gains popularity. Cash bail discriminates against the poor and is unfairly applied (see article); using technological tracking, check-ins, and similar might be a fairer solution that can be applied uniformly.

I would like to say on a more general note: The influence of money in US criminal justice seems to corrupt everything it touches. From prisons, to parole, to representation, to sentencing, and beyond. Everything we can do to get money's influence out of criminal justice we should do.

<comment><USER4> The article also proves things that people were unwilling to accept in this article:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19253333](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19253333)

There people always made the point that human judges making just decisions based on fairness. Well, clearly not.

Algorithms would be another, better way to know exactly what makes the determination if a person should be released awaiting trial or not.

<comment><USER5> >Algorithms would be another, better way to know exactly what makes the determination if a person should be released awaiting trial or not.

Isn't it a source of constant concern that the algorithms that end up being used in law enforcement inevitably end up employing the same stereotypes that their flesh and blood counterparts have?

<comment><USER6> But wouldn't algorithms be easy to examine? At the least you can test it with similar circumstances and modify the "race" variable and see if the results are consistent or different. Humans have many self-image protective layers when questioned (e.g. "I'm not racist, I have black friends!"), Bbut hopefully algorithms are more transparent...

<comment><USER7> Race variable is often correlated with other data.

Look at red lining in real estate/banking. They marked black neighbourhoods with red boxes, white neighbourhoods with green. The bank would approve business and home loans depending on if you were in a red or green area. Algorithmically the banks did not engage in a racist practice but systemically they are.

<comment><USER8> But did they mark red areas _because_ they were black neighborhoods or because historically people in those neighborhoods defaulted on loans?

An algorithm as simple as "mark neighborhoods with high default rates as red, low default rates as green" would probably turn out to be "racist" even if it is also flagging poor white trailer parks with red.

There's no easy way to solve that

<comment><USER9> At least in the case of historic redlining (i.e. where the term came from), we don't have to wonder - there has been a ton of research done on this, and it was pretty clearly a racially motivated discriminatory practice. A fact which resulting in, among other measures, the fair housing act in the late 60s....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish we would focus more on reweaving our tattered social fabric so people can access housing, healthcare, etc affordably and consistently. We also need to make it easier for parents to put their kids first. From what I gather, money spent on preschool reduces money spent on prison down the line as just one example of the direct and known connection between how we treat our kids and crime statistics.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to address problems with our prisons and courts, etc. But I don't like the general trend in the world to improve fire fighting practices without doing fire prevention while frequently putting out the fire with gasoline, so to speak.

"Fire fighting" gets you hailed as a hero. "Fire prevention" tends to be dismissed as "You didn't really do anything. You just got lucky." Humans are super bad at counting the disasters that didn't happen, but should/would have. So "fire fighting" is more attractive, "sexy" and heroic.

But it's a really sick system that actively creates problems in order to give a few people the role of "hero" on the backs of the many victims of the system. And I would very much like to see less of that.

<comment><USER11> ""Fire fighting" gets you hailed as a hero. "Fire prevention" tends to be dismissed as "You didn't really do anything. You just got lucky." Humans are super bad at counting the disasters that didn't happen, but should/would have. So "fire fighting" is more attractive, "sexy" and heroic."

There is generally no respect for maintenance and things that last. Same in the corporate world. The people who keep systems running get labeled as "dinosaurs".

<comment><USER10> I stayed home with my kids until they were in their teens. I did so in part because I was molested and raped after my sister left for college and my mom began working, leaving me unprotected from a predator.

My kids were never molested. It was crystal clear in my mind that the single biggest thing I could do to protect them from predators was simply be present. They spent little time in daycare or home alone.

I am often reluctant to talk about that. Stay at home moms are treated like unambitious losers mooching off their gainfully employed husbands. Self proclaimed feminists are routinely really ugly to me and other women like me. Talking about the importance of a parent being there gets decried as being a misogynistic dinosaur advocating for women to be barefoot and pregnant.

I also have been told that my presence at home is not why my sons were never molested. I was merely "lucky" and I'm wrongfully trying to take credit for some random roll of the dice when I didn't actually do a fucking thing.

But I'm quite clear that civilization is mostly nurtured quietly by "thankless jobs" and the celebrated heroes are often a symptom of a failed system, so celebrating them sometimes strikes me as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

My sons understand the things I've done for them and they routinely tell me "You're an awesome mom and I'm so glad you raised me." But the rest of the world is pretty bad about making me feel like a total fucking loser with nothing of value to offer who doesn't deserve an adequate income and should stop whining about being poor.

So it's driven home to me daily that the world terribly undervalues quiet maintenance type work.

<comment><USER11> "So it's driven home to me daily that the world terribly undervalues quiet maintenance type work."

I always think about how little the cleaners at a company are paid. In a sense they keep the whole thing running but they get sooo little respect.

<comment><USER10> One of the reasons I ultimately quit my corporate job: during the recession, they cut back on janitorial to save money.

I was taking my own trash out of my cubicle every other day because I have a compromised immune system and it makes me too sick to work to leave trash there for two days.

I wonder how much productivity went down because of this one decision without anyone but me seeing any connection whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Bail funds have emerged in many cities to help get people out of jail while they await their trial. If you are interested (and hopefully appalled) by how many people are locked in cages in the United States without being convicted of anything simply because they don't have the money to post bail, please find one and donate to it. Your money can keep working to get many people out of jail long after you donate.

[https://www.communityjusticeexchange.org/nbfn- directory](https://www.communityjusticeexchange.org/nbfn-directory)

[https://www.immigrantbailfund.org/about](https://www.immigrantbailfund.org/about)

[https://bailproject.org/](https://bailproject.org/)

<comment><USER13> I served on a jury where the guy was in jail for 3 days short of six months. He ended up being convicted on a charge which carries a maximum of 6 months. He almost certainly wouldn't have received 6 months (if any time at all), so inability to pay bail was the greater crime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd like to know if anyone can run and start a new life somewhere else. Is it possible?

I suspect Bail is an anachronism in these modern times. 100 years ago you could jump on a train and virtually disappear, never be seen again. Now cops can track people's phone to see exactly where they are at any time of the day.

<comment><USER15> If someone really wants to run they can still do so, but the story you hear from everybody who does it is that it's not worth it. You spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder and working petty jobs for cash and living in squalor because the nice places check ID. You also can't contact friends and family anymore. It's a sucky life.

<comment><USER16> I suspect Whitey Bulger preferred being on the run to the alternative. If someone decides "it's not worth it" and wants to stop running, all they need to do is turn themselves in. Their revealed preferences suggest that they prefer being on the run.

<comment><USER17> In some cases, once you flee/escape/skip-bail you will face additional charges (as well as likely getting a stiffer sentence for the underlying crime.)

The miserable life of being on the run might not have been worth the original threat being faced, but, regrettably, it may be worth the original threat + the new threat.

That's why every so often governments will have amnesty-like programs where you are able to turn yourself in with no extra consequences if you have a warrant. Or, for that matter, register for citizenship or legal status without fear of facing the legal consequences for the original illegal entry or overstay of visa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There shouldn't be fees of __ANY __kind in the justice system.

<comment><USER19> Strictly speaking it isn't a fee. If you have all of the money for your bail you give it up but you get all of it back when you show up court. If you use a bail bondsman that's who charges you the fee. They are basically giving you a loan, and then they are on the hook to make sure you show up.

<comment><USER5> I guess I'm confused to why a system needs to have bail bondsmen - isn't the idea behind bail being something you can possibly give up but want to get back? Isn't bail bonds something you can't afford? Even just paying the fee might be too much for people, but the alternative is to wait in jail an unjust amount of time.

<comment><USER20> Most people don't have enough cash on hand to pay any amount of bail that would serve as an incentive for them to get back--especially not most people who get arrested on criminal complaints.

The bail bondsman actually provides another service to the court: he has the legal power and financial incentive to apprehend a suspect and return them to the custody of the court if you skip bail. In other words, instead of the county sheriff having to worry about apprehending everyone who skips bail, they effectively outsource it to the bail bondsman. The bail bondsman thus has an incentive to make sure you don't skip bail, or failing that, to make sure that he can apprehend you--and these risks are priced into the effective rate of interest on the bail bond. (Most "bounty hunters" in the US are just bail bondsmen trying to recover their suspect, or somebody working for or contracted by the same.)

It's a fairly underrated and underappreciated market mechanism where the entire problem of "making sure people show up to court if they are on trial" can be handled by a competitive market, usually more efficiently or humanely than most local governments would do themselves. But it involves money changing hands, which gets certain people all up in a lather about abolishing it.

<comment><USER5> > But it involves money changing hands, which gets certain people all up in a > lather about abolishing it.

If you're found innocent is the bail fee rescinded?

<comment><USER21> If by "bail fee" you mean the money that the bail bondsman charges you, then no, it is not. You can basically think of bail bondsmen like a bank. You are borrowing money from them to get out of jail. Their fee is like a high interest rate on the loan. They are a completely separate entity than the court that decides whether you are guilty or innocent. For instance- if you hired a lawyer and were found innocent, would you expect the lawyer to refund you your legal fees? Same with the bail bondsman. He is just doing the job you paid him to do (get you out).

<comment><USER5> I wonder if the bail fees have increased over the years because of the existence of said bondsmen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Cash bail is a terrible system, but not having it is worse. At least from what I understand, the states removing cash bail end up having the judges keep much more people in jail, as suddenly everybody is a flight risk.

<comment><USER23> This is a false dichotomy. There is non-cash bail too, and other systems of encouraging or ensuring people attend court.

<comment><USER22> Of course there are other options, but nothing gets people to show up quite like money does. I looked a fair bit and unfortunately have not found any statistics on holding rates before and after bail reform in the states doing so, neither have I found flight rates before and after, so if anybody could clear the air here I would greatly appreciate it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> John Arnold's Artificial Intelligence Tool is systematically tricking judges to profit off criminals and unsuspecting taxpaying citizens.

John Arnold started as a non profit foundation, after deceiving cities to use their "Machine Learning", they incorporated as an LLC anticipating profits using good unsuspecting judges as pawns. [https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/laura-and-john- arnol...](https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/laura-and-john-arnold- foundation-to-restructure-as-llc)

After selling his Artificial Intelligence Tool to Washington D.C. there has been a 227% surge in crimes. "We have witnessed the tragic impact that a climate of hate and division can cause. The FBI report highlights how communities across DC must continue to confront intolerance and bigotry, and continue to work together to build and maintain an inclusive and welcoming city" – Anti-Defamation League [https://www.washingtonian.com/2018/11/14/hate- crimes-are-up-...](https://www.washingtonian.com/2018/11/14/hate-crimes-are- up-62-percent-in-dc/)

The NAACP, ACLU, MIT and 100 other organizations panicking as John Arnold pushes his racist and secret machine learning algorithm to decide who goes to jail, "More than 100 civil rights and community-based organizations, signed a statement urging against the use of risk assessment." [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612775/algorithms- crimina...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612775/algorithms-criminal- justice-ai/)

Criminal Justice is a human element, that needs to focus on humans deciding who goes to jail while we address real issues such as Community Development and Prison Reform. [https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison- reform/pri...](https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison- reform/prison-reform-and-alternatives-to-imprisonment.html)

</comment><comment> m-p-3 The justice system in the US is skewed towards profit. No real justice can prevail if the system favors money above all.

</comment><comment><USER25> Cathy O'Neill wrote a terrific book a couple of years back called 'Weapons of Math Destruction'. It's a must read for those of us in this field - <USER2> generally a great eye opener.

It would behoove us all to think about the consequences of the algorithms we're working on - much like this article.

</comment><comment><USER26> > _In itself, an inability to pay bail after being arrested makes it more > likely that you will be convicted of that offense,_

That could be, at least in part, due to inability to post bail being correlated with actually, like, being guilty.

That and being unsophisticated and without a lawyer.

> _The implications of the two studies are powerful and troubling. Being > behind bars while awaiting trial had profound negative repercussions, and > they were borne disproportionately by low-income people and by black > people._

For pete's sake, and the umpteenth time, correlation doesn't imply cause and effect.

</comment><comment><USER27> "Consider two defendants with similar backgrounds who were accused of a nonviolent property crime or misdemeanor. By the luck of the draw, one faced a lenient judge and was released, and the other got a different judge who set an unaffordable bail amount

The detained arrestee was more likely to appear in court for his trial.

But he was also more likely to be convicted."

OR

The Judge knew what he was doing in setting a higher bail for the one who was convicted.

This whole narrative hinges on the study authors knowing more than the Judge what a proper level of bail is - despite not actually being there.

<comment><USER28> The intention of bail is to ensure that defendants who are not jailed show up to trial, not to prevent guilty suspects from being free before their conviction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm surprised that one of the simplest solutions hasn't been tried. Bail bondsmen are restricted by statute on how much they can charge; we should at least consider lowering the rate from 10% to something much lower (1-2%?) and putting tools like follow-up text messages, etc., in the hands of these agencies. It's not ideal but it is in their best interest to ensure that their clients show up in court rather than have to chase them down.

<comment><USER20> I would be surprised if there's anything preventing bail bondsmen from sending text messages to their clients. I mean, there's nothing preventing them from physically apprehending their suspects after they skip bail, so sending a text message is definitely within their means.

The problem with lowering the maximum rate is that this would put high-risk suspects in jail since they wouldn't even have the choice of making bail. Which is the same problem with abolishing cash bail. With cash bail, if someone's a higher risk, the judge can set a higher level of bail in case there's a bondsman willing to stick his neck out for him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I really like the Bail Project - [https://www.ted.com/talks/robin_steinberg_what_if_we_ended_t...](https://www.ted.com/talks/robin_steinberg_what_if_we_ended_the_injustice_of_bail?language=en)

</comment><comment><USER31> >The study found that being held in jail while awaiting trial also makes it more likely that, two to four years after an initial arrest, you will be engaged in criminal behavior or unemployed.

Correlation vs causation, yadda yadda

<comment><USER32> Thankfully, there's more to publishing in top journals than 'yadda yadda.' Instrumental variables allow for statements about causality, which is exactly the statistical tool the authors used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> With the ubiquitous tracking technology we have these days, why are we still putting innocent people in jail? It's barbaric and unjust. Give them a GPS bracelet and let them go home or wherever they want. Or have we given up completely on the "innocent until proven guilty" idea?

<comment><USER16> Suppose someone is accused of a mass shooting, murdering their neighbor, beating up their spouse, carjacking, or armed robbery. Right then, off you go; just wear this bracelet...

Doesn't seem particularly reasonable to not incarcerate _anyone_ before trial.

<comment><USER34> Posting a cash bail has no bearing on your risk to the public. If a judge thinks that you pose a high risk, you shouldn't be offered bail at any price; if you don't pose a significant risk, you should be offered bail conditional on your behaviour during the bail period rather than your ability to pay.

The vast majority of people on bail aren't mass murderers or armed robbers, they're petty criminals and drug addicts. If you think a shoplifter might reoffend while on bail, then make his bail conditional on staying away from the local mall. If you think a domestic abuser might reoffend while on bail, then make his bail conditional on having no contact with his spouse. If you think that someone might abscond, then make his bail conditional on GPS tagging or regularly signing on at a police station.

Bail conditions (with suitable monitoring) are fairer and more effective than cash bail.

<comment><USER20> Bail conditions are all well and good, and it's not an either/or--even if you pay cash bail for a domestic violence charge, you're still required to stay away from the alleged victim.

The purpose of cash bail is to make sure the suspect shows up to court. Which --sure, can be replaced with monitoring, and then instead of having a bail bondsman pick up bail-jumpers at zero cost to the taxpayer, the taxpayer can pay the sheriff's department to round up bail-jumpers instead.

<comment><USER33> Sounds like a win win situation. We get rid of the scummy bail bonds men and we make the sheriff so his job all the while not putting innocent people in jail. Oh, what's that? You'd rather have innocent people in jail rather than paying the sheriff to do his job every once in awhile? That's quite an immoral position.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tesla's gross margin on the Model 3 could be a game changer - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2017/05/08/tesla-model-3-gross-margin/ <comment><USER2> An article I read recently made a good point about Tesla's margins that I hadn't considered before.

Tesla is selling at retail directly to consumers, whereas most dealerships sell wholesale to dealerships. Of course their margins will be higher, but they have to eat the cost of their retail infrastructure that other manufacturers don't.

In that way, their higher margins aren't that much of a benefit because some of the cost is just getting shifted into SG&A. It was interesting because I had never heard it brought up but it made a lot of sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting, haven't thought of it. But at the end of the day selling directly to the customer still is a competitive advantage, right?</comment></comment>


Software Aging (1994) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~yfcai/CS451/RequiredReadings/SoftwareAging.pdf <comment><USER2> > Programs, like people, get old. We can't prevent aging, but we can > understand its causes, take steps to limit its effects, temporarily reverse > some of the damage it has caused, and prepare for the day when the software > is no longer viable.

> A sign that the Software Engineering profession has matured will be that we > lose our preoccupation with the first release and focus on the long term > health of our products. Researchers and practitioners must change their > perception of the problems of software development. Only then will Software > Engineering deserve to be called Engineering.

\---

According to the article, there are two types of software aging: change or lack thereof.

\- Lack of movement: failure of the product's owners to modify it to meet changing needs

\- Ignorant surgery: result of the changes that are made

In addition, distinctly from aging, there's accumulation: "the system slow down caused by failure to release allocated memory" or storage, file system filling up, etc.

\---

Some of the costs of aging:

\- Inability to keep up

\- Reduced performance

\- Decreasing reliability

Strategies to reduce such costs:

\- Design for change

\- Documentation

\- Reviews

\---

How to deal with aged software:

\- Retroactive documentation

\- Incremental modularization

\- "Amputation"

\- "Major surgery" \- Restructuring

</comment><comment><USER3> There is also a considerable body of work on so called Software Rejuvenation, to mitigate software aging phenomena, lead by Prof Kishor Trivedi, from Duke U</comment>


Using a piano keyboard as a computer keyboard - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5928061/using-a-piano-keyboard-as-a-computer-keyboard <comment><USER2> "I have RSI problems and have tried 30 different computer keyboards which all caused me pain. Playing piano does not cause me pain"

What is it about computer keyboards that are so bad? How can a piano be that different?

<comment><USER3> I think the key thing (pun intended) is that the piano is large and therefore people using it move their hands to accommodate, whereas a keyboard is small enough to reach all the relevant parts while not moving your hands but instead stretching the fingers/twisting the wrist, which is great for maximizing typing speed but not for minimizing RSI. It's been pet theory of mine for a while that the reason I don't have RSI despite typing a lot every day is that my technique is absolutely horrendous; I never learned to type properly, so I move my hands a bit while typing and don't always use the same finger for the same key, depending on the surrounding letters, which makes me a relatively slow typer (although not as much as you might think!) but seems to have prevented me from ever getting RSI.</comment></comment>


America's Newest Profession - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB124026415808636575-IMyQjAxMDI5NDIwMTIyNjE0Wj.html#print/Mode <comment><USER2> " _Already more Americans are making their primary income from posting their opinions than Americans working as computer programmers ..._ "

There is absolutely no way that this is true. They say that "452,000 [use blogging] as their primary source of income." I would be very surprised to find less than half a million programers are working in the US.

<comment><USER3> It's false, but it's not off by much. As of 2002, there were 562,700 programmers in the U.S:

<http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/43888.html>

2002 was the last year they had full data for the series ID given there (I checked at the Bureau of Labor Statisics), but it had been stable for a few years.

I wouldn't be surprised if blogging crosses over within the next couple years. It's a very labor-intensive profession, and as the article notes, many people will pay for a friendly opinion.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure how a source from 2002 proves false a citation of a source from 2007.

Edit: Look, whoever keeps downvoting this, would you PLEASE read the sources? Is that too much to ask? See my other comment below, explaining how the article arrived at its number, and why it doesn't sound right.

It's really disappointing to see HN devolve into such sloppy thinking.

<comment><USER4> (Also, sorry to complain about getting downvoted.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I had a friend once who was a professional blogger, though she lived in Costa Rica to reduce her cost of living and made most of her revenue through affiliate links to online casinos before the US started cracking down on gambling. Now that there's been a crackdown, blogging is less fun to her. She's become addicted to Twitter and found other work.

</comment><comment><USER6> I am skeptical of the numbers in this article. I'd like to see the data that's backing this up, and how it's gathered.

<comment><USER4> The Bureau of Labor Statistics does pretty good work compiling statistics, but that isn't a guarantee that journalists will do a good job of reading them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The dismissive tone of the article makes me think that the writer is just another member of an anointed establishment (newspapermen in this case) that feels threatened by a new paradim made possible by new technology.

"Journalist" and "blogger" are not mutually exclusice terms. A journalist is one who reports the news, a blog is merely the medium.w

<comment><USER8> What part was dismissive? I didn't get that sense at all. If anything, he seemed to be acknowledging that blogging is rapidly eclipsing his profession.

It is true that a journalist can blog his stories, but I doubt that a significant amount of blogging is original reporting. The vast majority is probably opinion or analysis of one sort or another.

<comment><USER7> My initial read was a quick one on my phone, so I went back to make sure I wasn't wrong....

"This could make us the most noisily opinionated nation on earth."

\- Just a noisy opinion, in my opinion.

"All this fits with the trend toward Opinion TV. Less and less of our information flow is devoted to gathering facts, and more and more is going toward popularizing opinion. Twenty-four-hour news channels have been replaced by 24-hour opinion channels. The chatter is the story."

\- Nice job fitting in another baseless stance around a fact simply to legitimize said opinion by proximity. Conveniently left unsaid is the fact that the "twenty-four-hour news channels" he holds up on a pedestal are themselves 24-hour opinion channels. Have you ever stayed home from work for a day and watched CNN or Fox News?

"Bloggers make money if their consumers click the ads on their sites. Some sites even pay writers by the click, which is of course a system that promotes sensationalism, or doing whatever it takes to get noticed."

\- Again, assigning a label ("sensationalism") to blogs as if it didn't exist before blogs did. National Enquirer-type rags aside, all the major news channels before the internet have been perfecting this art for the past couple of decades.

The author is not presenting an unbiased report of facts. He is presenting his own viewpoint DISGUISED as a neutral report.

This report, coming from a "reputable" source like the WSJ is a great example of why the democratization of the publishing business is good for the public. There may be a lot of fluff out there, as he states, but the good stuff rises to the top.

<comment><USER8> "Have you ever stayed home from work for a day and watched CNN or Fox News?"

I am almost certain these are the opinion channels to which he refers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Particularly enjoyed this quote:

 _"All this fits with the trend toward Opinion TV. Less and less of our information flow is devoted to gathering facts, and more and more is going toward popularizing opinion. Twenty-four-hour news channels have been replaced by 24-hour opinion channels. The chatter is the story."_

Also, I had no idea that many people considered blogging their primary profession. I was under the impression it was more like 1000 tops.

<comment><USER8> "452,000 of those using blogging as their primary source of income."

Yep, I was surprised to see a number that large for "primary source of income." I can believe that 20 million people tried blogging one or two posts then gave up, but half a million people making their living this way is a significant occupation.

<comment><USER9> Op, debunking: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=572970>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> According to the article, 425,000 people use blogging as their primary source of income.

Let's assume two authors per blog. So you'd expect some of those blogs to have a Technorati rank of 200,000 or worse. So far as I can see, blogs with that kind of Technorati rank usually have readers which number in the tens or (at most) hundreds. Good luck making thousands of dollars per year with that kind of readership...

</comment><comment><USER11> Talk about putting all your eggs in the internet advertising basket. Remember the last time that market collapsed?

It was not pretty...

</comment><comment><USER12> What, was this originally written in 2006 and just posted now? Way to get the late-breaking scoop buddy.

<comment><USER13> While the tone is sarcastic and downvoted, I somewhat agree with this poster. Maybe if this article were written six+ months ago, before the ad market tanked, this would have been a much more interesting topic.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Compression-stats-CLI Tool to print gzip and brotli compression stats - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rajasegar/compression-stats-cli <comment><USER2> What about bzip2, and various other compression algorithms?

What about compression and decompression time, and CPU utilization? Do you look at single threaded or multithreaded implementations?

There are so many questions left unanswered here....

<comment><AUTHOR> At present it supports only gzip and brotli compression, and it's using an approach of spawning multiple child processes for compressing files using node worker-pool library since it is implemented in Javascript</comment></comment>


Show HN: breeziee.com - add a paywall to any link for free - <AUTHOR> http://breeziee.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I first created Breeziee about 6 months ago, but it could only accept credit cards, was costly to run (because I had to host the files), and it seemed like no one wanted to use it. So rather than letting my work go to waste, I rebuilt it to be cheap to run, and to act as a PayPal gateway and provide paywall services for free - There are no fees or cuts taken by me.

Let me know what you guys think!

<comment><USER2> Looks pretty cool. I have something I want to sell via paypal and this could save me a lot of time. How will you make money?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't really know. I was thinking about either adding tons of extra features and making a $10/year subscription to access them or offering paid "featured" file promotion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You have a very severe security vulnerability on your site. Please provide an email address in your info I can contact you at. (The email field is hidden to others.)

Edit: interwho has fixed the vulnerability. There was a CSRF allowing you to take over someone else's account if they visited your site.

<comment><USER4> The site is asking for an email which also happens to be a PayPal account (Placeholder text is "Email (and PayPal) address..."), along with a password. The user is not a known quantity and it's his/her first submission to HN, it's very possible he/she is hoping that PayPal email addresses/passwords that you put in match. There is no HTTPS, no seals or verification, no guarantees of the security of any of your data and that your password is not being stored in plaintext. There is a security vulnerability and the site was a purchased template. It's quite possibly legit, but without more information I would avoid.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm bcrypting the passwords.

Exact method: sha1(bcrypt(sha1(md5.'othersalt').'salt').'anothersalt') and a few more salts + sha1s

<comment><USER5> Which means nothing if it is possible to snipe the passwords from the HTTP request. Firesheep, anyone?

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, I'll get a security cert + force ssl.

<comment><USER6> _> You're right, I'll get a security cert + force ssl._

As someone who has worked in security for years--in particular, application security assessments--thank you for taking the sometimes hard-to-swallow criticism well, and deciding to actually _fix things_ rather than just deflect the issue. You probably have no idea how many (even reputable) organizations decide to "accept the risk" and ignore security findings. (Edit: More so than the SSL issue, I'm talking about fixing the CSRF)

 _> The user is not a known quantity and it's his/her first submission to HN, it's very possible he/she is hoping that PayPal email addresses/passwords that you put in match._

There is nothing wrong with the logic in this statement, but you also need to be careful how far you take it. One could argue that _any_ of the small "Show HN" posts around here are hoping to harvest credentials. In fact, I'm sure that some of them do. When using software as a service--or indeed, any web application--there is an inherent degree of trust behind it. Even if the user had made many HN posts, or _not_ bought the pre-made site (which looks nice, IMO), or purchased an HTTPS certificate... credential harvesting is still a real threat.

Even bigger services that claim to encrypt password databases have often been shown to in fact do nothing of the sort (eg, sending password reminder emails etc).

This is why security guys worth their salt will always suggest using random passwords for every service you sign up for and keeping them in an encrypted file a la KeePass or a TrueCrypt container with a long, complicated "master password" for the archive. Additionally, it's always a great idea to enable 2-factor authentication where ever possible (for example, Google accounts).

<comment><AUTHOR> If I didn't take any criticism, how would I improve? :)

As to the fact that this is my first post here, I've been a lurker for a long time, and finally had something good to post. I've been on reddit and a few developer forums under this username (and interwhos) for much longer.

Thank you for writing this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you guys are interested in this you might also want to check out <https://gumroad.com/> which seems to be in the same space but a little higher quality

<comment><AUTHOR> As I said earlier, the differences are: No fees, you don't need a credit card to buy something, I have a file directory + search.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Relevant/similar in the UK: <https://gocardless.com/paylinks>

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm glad I took a second look at this. By using the "paywall" terminology, I thought inititally this was meant to annoy visitors by hiding content away like the NYTimes.

Rather, I see the potential uses for selling ebooks, video lessons, access to Minecraft servers, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is this any better/different than Gumroad?

<comment><AUTHOR> No fees, you don't need a credit card to buy something.

<comment><USER10> So its basically the same though... Just pricing/paying policies differ

<comment><AUTHOR> I also have a directory + file search. I haven't used Gumroad, so I'm not sure what it's control panel looks like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Did you take the design from <http://socialcroc.com/>?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope. It's built from a template.

<comment><USER11> Hehe, which template?

<comment><AUTHOR> Beats me as to the name of it, it was found on a free landing page template site.

<comment><USER11> :) Ok.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Let me know if you need an extra programmer hand to help out. I think it will work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Please email me through the address here: <http://breeziee.com/contact.php>

<comment><USER12> your contact.php page does not load for me. My email is in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't seem to find your email in your profile, but you can email me here: justin [at] breeziee [d o t] com.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> looks quite cool actually - just didn't understand the part with the "file link"

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll try my best to explain this:

To sell something on Breeziee, you'd have to first upload the file to a web server or hosting service (ie. imgur, Dreamhost, mediafire, etc...), put the url of your file in the link field on Breeziee, and finally, share the link to the paywall page that is created for you.

<comment><USER14> What happens if the hosting server, or web server drops the file? If someone pays for a file and they find it is unreachable they will have a negative view of your service.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suppose you could file a case with PayPal.

<comment><USER15> you could check the link immediately prior to accepting payment, and show a 'sorry, file is gone :-(' error page if not found.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, I'll look into it. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why don't you have an example on your site?

<comment><AUTHOR> There's the directory at the bottom of the page:

<http://breeziee.com/directory.php>

Do you think I should put a demo link at the top of the page?

<comment><USER16> I think so - I wasn't sure what the paywall would look like and having to dig through the directory seems unintuitive. It doesn't even have to actually have any purchasing logic either.

<comment><AUTHOR> Done. Thanks for the suggestion!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mixed Signals: Why People Misunderstand Each Other - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/mixed-signals-why-people-misunderstand-each-other/391053/?single_page=true

<comment><USER2> Just out of college I did a short stint at a staffing agency doing outside sales. It was a highly competitive environment with a lot of personalities. On top of that the average age in the office was probably 23-24 and it was almost everyone's first real job.

You would think this environment would be a hot bed for miscommunications and drama. Oddly enough, there never really was much drama in the office. The company had an extreme focus on metrics, they measured everything and benchmarked everyone (# of meetings/wk, calls/wk, forms submitted, time spent on email, etc.).

Every 3 months they also brought everyone in the office into a room and we would all go around and say one good thing and one bad thing about each other to the entire group. This brought a lot of the miscommunication out into the open and helped get everyone on the same page.

The company made it to a billion dollars in revenue in under 10 years so they were definitely on to something. I have never been in a sales environment since where communication and understanding were that well maintained.

<comment><USER3> _Every 3 months they also brought everyone in the office into a room and we would all go around and say one good thing and one bad thing about each other to the entire group._

That (saying a negative thing) seems like it could backfire.

<comment><USER2> The big meetings were mostly about constructive criticism. There was also a policy where if you had a problem with someone you'd immediately step in another room with them and hash it out. Some things are better discussed 1 on 1 rather than in a group.

If you consistently had lingering issues with people this would hurt your chance for promotion. You were expected to deal with issues as soon as they arose.

The CEO believed that lingering issues can greatly impact your productivity and are a huge distraction. I tend to agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a little disappointed in this article, in that upper face movements are generally (as far as I've read and seen) very reliable indicators of emotion. The only two common misconceptions I've read about are this, which is a confusion likely caused by brow furrowing and lower eyebrow tensing used in some anger faces and while concentrating, and when some women crinkle their nose when they enjoy something, which is also used when feeling disgust.

In general, people (especially men, who perform less well in face-reading tests) are more likely to miss a emotion on someone's face or not know what it means than misinterpret it ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2273571/Why-men- ha...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2273571/Why-men-harder-women- read-emotions-face.html)).

<comment><USER5> Hahaha yes, my concentration face is also mistaken for my pissed off face.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another complication is that the way people perceive themselves may not be a "true" read on their behavior. If a person acts anxious in stressful situations, it makes sense to cut them some slack. But what if a person is always in stressful situations that seem avoidable? Everybody else may think of them as anxious, while their internal view is that they're unlucky.

</comment><comment><USER7> > _" Can you imagine how exhausting it would be to weigh every possible > motivation of another person?"_

Which is why people take the shortcut of assuming anyone who says things they don't like is an asshole.

<comment><USER8> Here is where the cultural differences comes into play. In a particular culture, there is an usually semi-well defined set of protocols that assists us to decipher the non-verbal communications. But in a global village, I find it easier to give everyone the benefit of doubt.

Why? Because to me it feels, we are mostly rational people and at the end of the day we don't want to do anything that will hunt our consciousness. So we will always try to balance out our good and evil.

<comment><USER9> And we can all link hands and sing Kumbaya.

I don't have the mental energy to give everyone I come across the benefit of the doubt. When it's all said and done, the people who don't take the time to try and understand me get dismissed pretty quickly.

I know, I know, that makes me a terrible person. But it's also true that some people are more considerate than others, and all things being equal, if I'm going to expend my limited energy on someone, it's going to be the person who is a little more considerate.

I guess that's my failing, but whatever.

<comment><USER10> There is this recorded saying that they've been playing on the subway in NYC... It's trite -- borderline oppressive when you're stuck in a sardine can of a subway car -- but it applies here: "Courtesy is contagious, and it begins with you."

There's no reason for you or anyone else to think you're a terrible person because of what you're saying, but at the same time, it might be helpful for you to reconsider your position. What happens if someone catches you on a bad day in which you aren't trying to understand people? They "dismiss you pretty quickly" and you're left holding the bag.

<comment><USER9> We're not discussing courtesy.

I can excuse me and hello, nice to meet you all day long without a second thought. But I'm not going to spend my time trying to reconcile with someone who is being unfair to something I said when I could instead be using that time to reconcile with someone who is instead simply misunderstanding me.

there is an idea known as irreconcilable differences, that idea applies here.

<comment><USER10> It's called "courtesy" on the subway, but the analogous traits are "empathy" and "earnestness" in general discourse. My point was less about the specific trait and more that often times we can encourage/evoke the traits we want to see in others by first developing and portraying them in ourselves. I guess I am looking at the grey area between someone being unfair to you and someone who is misunderstanding you. I think that trying to empathize and understand the "other" often results in finding out that someone isn't actually being "unfair" to us, but rather, is actually "misunderstanding" us. That working point can give way to deeper understanding in a conversation/venture that might have otherwise been discarded because of "irreconcilable differences."

<comment><USER9> no, this is courtesy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5rIv4Qros](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5rIv4Qros)

If you're not willing to empathize enough to do this for another human being, then you're a terrible person who needs to work to be better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a subject that is pretty close to my heart, and which I think extends beyond demeanor. I witness on a near-daily basis conversations turning into heated arguments simply because the protagonists fail to see beyond their own perspectives and convey their own inadequately. Quite often, it seems, the points brought forward by the "opposing" party are largely ignored, the arguments are no longer about who/what is right, but about who wins. You therefore end up with conversations where the two parties are in fact talking about the same thing, but are so caught up in their own narrative that instict (System 1) takes over. Alternatively, people may be talking about completely different things and fail to realize they're doing so, effectively and unknowningly arguing in a vacuum, where loudness and displays of anger are more often than not the deciding factors. In both instances, this often results in disgruntled people and feelings being blown out of proportion. One only needs to look at political debates to see what I'm referring to.

On a lighter note, and hopefully providing more positive (anecdotal) examples than the article provides, signalling can be a very powerful tool too, even when mixed. It seems I have one of those faces that instills trust; quite regularly, completely random people will smile at me, say hello or even engage in conversation. Similarly, I'll be, say, on a bus and transport inspectors will get on and check everybody's tickets, except mine. They will look at me, smile at me, and completely ignore whether I do have a ticket. This sort of thing happens to me so regularly that I'm not even sure what to make of it, though it is definitely nice.

<comment><USER5> Do you have a baby face? I remember research showing these description all happen for people with a baby face. Their prime example was Matt Damen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> To look at the subject matter more generally: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind)

 _Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one 's own._</comment>


The White House is leading efforts for a new web authentication system - <AUTHOR> http://www.govtech.com/security/Drivers-License-for-the-Internet.html

<comment><USER2> What will this be that OpenID isn't?

Why should a developer choose to use this authentication solution over one of the popular OAuth based systems (Facebook, Google, Twitter)?

<comment><USER3> If this system is implemented correctly, a successful authentication is a guaranteed 1:1 match to a specific human being in the real world.

It would solve SPAM, for one thing - SPAM is any message not signed by a real- world identity. If a real-world identity _does_ send junk mail, you block them. They can't just go get another identity, so the block is actually useful. (Okay, you _can_ steal identities, with money/underworld connections, but it's unlikely to be profitable at scale.)

It would be orders of magnitude better than the current security model for financial transactions. Rather than simply hoping merchants will safeguard the magic numbers that are the _only_ thing needed to drain customers' bank accounts, you could set it so that only the person in control of a government- issued ID associated with a bank account can spend money using that account. And that you don't hand over your password to merchants - just use it to authorize transactions. Also, ideally, your government ID could have multiple factors like a physical token.

It would replace having to upload scans of ID documents, which is incredibly insecure both because of the risk of compromise - there are quite a number of things a malicious person can do with just that JPEG file - and because their security features are entirely physical - you can Photoshop someone else's name into your passport pretty easily, and Coinbase/your bank won't know the difference between that and the scan straight off a scanner.

Inevitably, people will hate this as a blow to anonymity/pseudoynmity, but there are already tons of applications which are inherently and/or deliberately not anonymous (like loans, credit cards, Bitcoin exchanges, etc.) and, if done right, this makes those services _way_ less prone to fraud. And consequently, cheaper.

It would be Orewellian if it were mandatory, but as an optional service, this is a good thing for everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm from the government and I'm here to help</comment>


How to Wake Up Smiling: The 9 Decisions That Led to a Life I Love - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/the-9-decisions-that-led-to-a-life-i-love-c2185732b46d <comment><USER2> To wake up smiling you should go to bed smiling ))

<comment><USER3> Haha agree. I could have written a much shorter article;).</comment></comment>


Treasury Designates Iran's Minister for Regime's Repressive Internet Censorship - <AUTHOR> https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm836 <comment><AUTHOR> >I have asked the Iranian protestors to send us their videos, photos, and information documenting the regime's crackdown on protestors. The U.S. will expose and sanction the abuses.

[https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1197659285704101891](https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1197659285704101891)</comment>


Model forces Google to reveal blogger's identity - onreact-com http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/model-forces-google-to-reveal-skank-bloggers-identity-20090819-epz0.html

<comment><AUTHOR> It's probably !HN, but I'd be interested in how many people read this as "Guess based on simulations forces Google to reveal..." versus how many read it as "Person paid (well) to wear clothes (barely) forces Google to reveal..."

<comment><USER2> I agree with this ruling. While I think privacy is important, the anonymity of the internet can bring out the worst in people. I think you should be held responsible for your actions, and once we start doing that with the internet I think you'll see a reduction in abuse.

Of course you'll get loads of frivolous lawsuits as well...

<comment> onreact-com I'm not so sure about that. While this case seems obvious bloggers in Germany on the other hand are required by law to publish their identity and real life street address.

This way many people are afraid to publish articles that might be controversial. Some already have been attacked by fascists or been shut up by lawyers.

Not to mention China of course where blog publishers have to register with authorities.

<comment><USER3> That's pretty f'd up. Do journalists have to publish their street address?

<comment> onreact-com As long as they work for a publication that has a real address of their office it's enough.

When they operate a blog or website on their own they also have to publish a so called imprint including an address (which might be an office address though).

Journalists and everybody else working from home have no choice for their sites and blogs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whether the model is a "skank" (which I read, as a UK English user, to be similar to a slag - a loose woman of low morals, skank suggests "scruffy" where slag does not) is a matter of opinion and not a matter of objective fact.

How then can one show that she is being defamed, if one considers here to be a skank then under that subjective definition she is. No defamation/libel just name calling.

If you said specifically she "slept around" and there was no factual basis for that then it would be different.

<comment><USER5> "How old is this skank? 40 something? She's a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank."

I think that is pretty concretely claiming that she "slept around." If there is a factual basis for the claim, the blogger should be cleared of all charges. If not, a libel or defamation case seems appropriate, just as if these claims were made in the New York Times or on CNN.

<comment><USER4> Reading that quote the only adjective at issue is "whoring" the rest are subjective unless the alleged defamer is her Psychiatrist and knows that she is not. Whoring in this context would be unlikely to be meant as actual prostitution instead I'd interpret it (though the courts will doubtless disagree) as meaning "she has multiple partners outside of or alongside long term relationships". This of course is a matter to be determined by facts.

Even if it's shown that in fact she does not sleep around, then there's the question of whether that allegation defames the person in question. For example they may be widely publically assumed to have that lifestyle and so this statement would no more defame her than the allegation of lying (everybody lies).

So does she sleep around, perhaps this should be determined before the breaching the anonymity of her critic. Revealing the critics identity is punishing them before the trial has even taken place to determine if they're guilty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There does seem an underlying 'this will make me $$$' feeling to this, though it's very sad to read how her career was ended.

Having worked with models/media for years, uber-bitching really is part of the territory, though they don't usually go as far as to put it in print, that probably wasn't such a great idea.

That's a curious part of the web though, whatever you say (write) or do, potentially stays there forever. I hate the fact the whenever anyone does a Google image search on me, the first thing they find is a shot of me and my business partner dressed as mariachi's - damn.

<comment><USER7> [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-livecdent/...](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-livecdent/MoviX- MPlayer.jpg)

Lies that's not a man in a mariachi costume! I demand to see the real picture!

<comment><USER6> If you insist:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/karaandrade/1254260996/in/set-7...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/karaandrade/1254260996/in/set-72157601712656685/)

<comment><USER4> "Bute Cardiff", do you have a RL connection to the Marquis of Bute?

Where's the third amigo?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Model Viewed Controller ?

<comment><USER9> Model Controlled View, more like.

A serious breach in privacy, imho. Online or offline, does not matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I thought that repeating defamatory remarks was a defamation on its own!</comment>


Google Drive and syncing with two computers ... Files end up duplicated - <AUTHOR> http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/drive/Yjmkd4nbhw4/C_ns26Fn2gQJ

<comment><USER2> I had this problem yesterday. But on one single computer.

Basically I started synchronizing files on my computer. Then decided I didn't like where the Google Drive is located. So I stoped Google Drive, moved it to somewhere else. And copied my old files inside the new folder. The problem is it duplicated the files thinking it was different sets of files.

I will still stay with GDrive because its cheap and cool, but I hope this all will be fixed soon. Also for programming's sake, never name a folder with a space in it Google "Google Drive"!!!

<comment><USER2> Btw I used Dropbox before, I liked it but it was expensive. But my company paid for it and I stayed on Dropbox Teams. Since Dropbox just changed its Terms of Service for Dropbox Teams I decided to go Google Drive for my personal files. And paying only 2.98$ / month taxes included is cool for 30GB!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Thanks for letting us know - duplicate file detection is on our radar as a frequently requested feature."

Seems like a fairly core "feature" that a file syncing service wouldn't duplicate the same file in the same folder.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I had to post this because I run into the same problem. And of course there is no support or some kind of warning that this problem exists and how to revert all these duplicate files.</comment>


Wunderlist to Transition to Microsoft Todo - <AUTHOR> https://www.wunderlist.com/blog/join-us-on-our-new-journey/ <comment><AUTHOR> Don't know what sort of userbase they had, but I'm just disappointed that my list app I used to plan things with family and friends no longer has sync options and will be owned by Microsoft instead of being just a small, quality project.

</comment><comment><USER2> I was starting to like Microsoft, with Github and all.</comment>


Former Twitter Employee Says Fake Russian Accounts Were Not Taken Seriously - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-03/former-twitter-employee-says-fake-russian-accounts-were-not-taken-seriously <comment><USER2> Twitter didn't care. They let it happen because they're broke.</comment>


The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/25/economy-shrank-almost-3-percent-in-q1-holy-guacamole/ <comment><USER2> A stock market recovery is not a "recovery."

Prime-age employment: [http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060](http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060)

Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: [http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most- familie...](http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-families-- wealth-has-vanished-172130204.html)

Median income: [http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median- Househo...](http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Household- Income-Update.php)

Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it.

edit: I intentionally use the prime age employment rate (as is convention of late) in order to avoid objections that the low employment rate is the fault of a large segment of baby boomers retiring.

The general numbers look worse, not better: [http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000](http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000)

<comment><USER3> That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

<comment><USER4> Very misleading Y axis. Here is the same plot with a proper axis: [http://i.imgur.com/k4ClDSF.png](http://i.imgur.com/k4ClDSF.png)

<comment><USER2> That one is the misleading one. We're interested in the magnitude of the change vs. the recovery, not the numbers 0 to 100.

A graph of GDP plotted as a percentage of current GDP at that scale could make the recession seem like a tiny little 2% blip.

<comment><USER5> The recession _is_ a tiny little 2% blip, if you're one of the ~85% of people who were not laid off and didn't have any trouble finding a job. And it's a very large 2% blip if you're one of the people who are.

My point is that perspective matters - a lot. By the numbers, this recession is worse than any since the Great Depression. By the numbers, this recession is only a small percentage of the total U.S. economy. Which numbers are correct? Well, they're actually the same numbers, what matters is how you use them and what conclusion you're trying to draw.

From my personal perspective, the recession was great. It meant I could actually get decent rents in the Bay Area for the first two years after I moved out here, and I could pick up stocks for relatively cheap, and I had no problem getting a job. I realize this is not the perspective of many other people, and the numbers help tell me _how_ many other people. And one of my professional startup interests is finding better ways to help people manage their careers, so I'm quite interested in hearing other people's perspectives (if you have stories or want to vent, feel free to e-mail me...I'm quite happy to listen, my e-mail address is in my profile.) But understand that numbers always require interpretation - whether the graph is misleading or not depends entirely on where you're leading people.

<comment><USER3> Very good points! From my perspective, the recession was devastating. Not for me, but for a friend's family. One of them owned a side business involving construction. Not enough to pay all the bills, but in '07 suddenly it was. So he quit his regular full-time job, even though he had a full family to support. It wasn't a stupid decision though, because he had so many contracts (guaranteed cash flows) that he could support his whole family twice over. I remember that business was so good that he made a big show of unveiling a wonderful grand piano for the whole family. He had the contracts to support such a lifestyle. Then '08 happened, and the contracts were all canceled. (Illegally, but that's beside the point; he couldn't afford to pay any bills, let alone a lawyer to go after anybody.) I later found out he had contemplated an elaborate suicide to collect on death insurance to provide for his own family.

Not trying to contradict anything you've said; merely adding an alternate perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> TL;DR: annual US GDP declined 2.9% because consumers spent less. In fact, they are not yet spending at rates anywhere near the rates at which they were spending before the financial crisis in 2008.

When consumers spend less, businesses in the aggregate sell less of everything, because every dollar spent by a consumer is a dollar earned by someone else -- usually a business.

Before the financial crisis, consumers _borrowed aggressively to finance consumption_ , like drunken sailors... but unlike the financial sector, they never got a bailout. They were forced by the circumstances to follow Steve Martin's advice from Saturday Night Live: "don't buy stuff you cannot afford."[2]

Are we really _that_ surprised that many consumers are reluctant to borrow and/or spend like before the crisis?

\--

Edits: modified first paragraph to convey what I actually meant to say, in response to ctl's comment. The original paragraph was poorly written. (Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency, ctl!)

\--

[1] [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/02/household_debt_vs_gdp...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/02/household_debt_vs_gdp.html)

[2] [https://screen.yahoo.com/dont-buy- stuff-000000884.html](https://screen.yahoo.com/dont-buy-stuff-000000884.html)

<comment><USER7> Part of this slowdown in consumer spending also has to do with the tightening of credit as well, making it more difficult for people without means to spend. In my opinion this is a great thing. When people are backed against a wall because they have no other way to pay for their livelihood than their salary, they're not going to be ok with stagnant wages and companies low balling them.

Bring on the pain, I say. Real growth comes from companies investing in their workforce, not people drowning themselves in debt.

Put another way: it used to be that you could buy a house for the equivalent of a year's salary. Now it seems most houses are about 5-6x the average salary of a given area. If that were still the case today, most Bay Area residents should be making near 1 mil/year or houses here should be closer to about $150-200k, more likely the latter since credit is primarily the reason for the inflated cost.

<comment><USER8> Interesting observation. It's really hard to shake off the shackles of presentism and imagine what the US would look like on an alternative timeline where the US government had not aggressively promoted home ownership and easy credit. The economy and legislation are now so thoroughly distorted in favor of home ownership that it's difficult to imagine how things could have been different.

Specifically, I'm wondering if there was a time when we were having the same debate about housing that we are now having about college tuition, but that it has been long enough (and there have been economic gains for homeowners) that we conveniently forget how much our longstanding policies drive up housing prices. The idea of buying a home on a full year's salary sounds crazy, but then again there was a time when 4 years of college could be paid off fully via part time work while at school, something that is distant pipe dream these days for the majority of jobs within the reach of most college students.

<comment><USER9> A cost revolution in creating housing is much less likely than MOOCs killing the 3rd tier colleges.

I'd like to be in an alternate universe without the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Afghanistan is famously The Graveyard of Empires, and I wonder if we are not just staggering around with a mortal wound, with another crash coming to bring us down comprehensively. Nationalizing the ibanks instead of TARP would be a nice alternate universe, too.

<comment><USER10> I think we are the alternate universe. Bush's win over Gore in 2000 was so ridiculous that a half-assed intervention by time-traveling experimental historians almost seems like a reasonable explanation.

It is interesting, and sad, to think of how much may have ended up hanging on a couple of hundred Florida voters. Of course, it may be wrong to think that a Gore presidency would have been all that different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The most interesting component of this was the healthcare drag in the revisions taking it down from the initial ones.

While a large element of this was the affordable care act, it is also notable that healthcare inflation went negative for the first time in 20 odd years last quarter (education did too, but thats another story).

Given the US currently spends twice the amount of other countries on its health care as a % of GDP (14%) for similar health outcomes and individuals are being significantly disincented to spend on healthcare via subsidies and high deductibles respectively, I think we will see increasing normalisation of healthcare spend to levels under 10% of GDP, a huge drag on GDP.

This will be further accelerated by smartphone and biometric proliferation allowing for easier and more reliable diagnosis and treatment choice.

Interesting times.

<comment><USER12> The healthcare example is a very good illustration of why the GDP calculation is susceptible to the broken window fallacy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).

The root of the problem is that GDP doesn't measure changes in capital stock. For example, after Fukushima, Japan's GDP ticked up slightly because of the expenditures from disaster recovery. Obviously it's absurd to conclude that Fukushima was good for the economy--the loss of capital more than outweighed the money spent fixing things. The same principle has many different implications. For example, if we reduced air pollution, expenditures on treating lung cancer would go down, hurting GDP. Countries that are heavily based on oil or mineral exports have artificially inflated GDP, because the measure excludes the decline in the value of reserves.

<comment><USER13> Interesting point regarding the parable, thank you for sharing.

If GDP does included anything stock, would that really be accurate? Not an expert, but isn't stock priced on the future value of something (ie dependent upon future sales forecasts). since GDP is backward looking, i don't think it should be counted? stock could be used as a predictor of future GDP since the stock is trying to put a value to future sales.

Also, wouldnt that also double count certain sales? ie each iPhone sold would increase goods sold as well as the companies stock price?

<comment><USER12> In this context, "capital stock" just refers to the accumulated wealth of the country, not shares of a corporation. It's the value of existing bridges, oil reserves, factories, etc. In the sense I'm using it, I'd even include human health (i.e. human capital).

<comment><USER14> I seem to recall that in most estimates of the total capital of the US that human capital vastly exceeds all physical capital.

<comment><USER12> Interesting, I didn't know that. I guess it makes sense though. This report puts the value at $738 trillion: [https://bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/06%20June/0610_christian.pdf](https://bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/06%20June/0610_christian.pdf).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can anybody who understands this stuff better than I do comment on the winter weather factor?

To me, the "winter sucked" excuse sounds like complete BS, a transparent lie along the lines of, "Well, I just didn't _want_ to order the tide to stop right now." This is a massive change (down a total of 7% or so from two quarters prior) and surely the weather, while unusual, wasn't _that_ strong.

But maybe it really is a big factor. I'm far from an expert. Can anyone comment on whether the weather (heh) reasoning is sane?

<comment><USER15> It's not intuitive, but since building sites must halt work during strong winter days, a large increase in the number of 'snow days' has an outsize effect on the total output of the construction sector --one of the largest sectors of the US economy-- during Q1.

This past winter was peculiar in that regard because not only there were more snowstorms overall than the previous year, but also there were major snowstorms in regions that seldom see that kind of weather like the South. And it shows in the figures for residential and commercial building during the quarter.

These seasonalities however are well understood and don't matter nearly as much, in part because construction companies often catch up on their delayed projects during the subsequent quarter. This is one the reasons why reading too much into annualized quarterly fluctuations can be misleading at times [1].

[1] [http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/whoa-whassup-with-that-big- neg...](http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/whoa-whassup-with-that-big- negative-q1-gdp-revision/)

<comment><USER10> Interesting point about catching up on work in the subsequent quarter. This sort of thing is why I thought the impact of weather was overstated, but I thought that the catchup would have happened during the same quarter. If it takes just a little bit longer then that would skew things a lot.

Also, I love how I can ask this question and get a ton of quality answers in quick succession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Real interest rates are negative and credit is tight. Credit has been tight for some time, but there is some debate as to when the real interest rate went below zero. These two factors will cause the US economy to (eventually) shrink because ~65% of its component parts reflect economic activities based on consumption. The economy can not expand because dollars that have historically gone into consumption are being invested into Treasuries. This has the effect of keeping yields on treasury notes down, which causes real interest rates to go below zero. A negative real interest rate environment implies investors are willing to take a small loss if it means they can avoid bigger losses on other investments.

</comment><comment><USER17> What does this article have to do with Hacker News?

Note the decidedly different tone from this entry on the same Washington Post Wonkblog:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/25/t...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/25/the- economy-just-had-its-worst-quarter-since-the-great-recession-heres-why-you- shouldnt-worry/)

<comment><USER18> Everything and nothing. Nothing to do with computers, everything to do with hype and name recognition.

Besides, computers are just tools. A means to an end. To the hammer designer, is a discussion about home building relevant? The economics of home building? The economics of people buying homes? The psychology of homebuyers? Is psychology relevant to hammer design? Maybe. Relevance is complicated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Recession-like. It is astounding that we are using any variation of that word five years into the recovery."

No, it's not. There is little to no recovery. The only surprising thing about analysis like this is how far the author goes to avoid explicitly stating this when it's so implicit in the article.

</comment><comment><USER20> Seems to me the idea of declaring a shrinking economy in terms of $ doesnt make sense. What if the average price of things is dropping (eg Healthcare)?

To me it seems the goal should just be how much stuff did we make? If that number went up, then good (except corn).

<comment><USER21> How would you define "stuff" and "make"? Especially with regards to financial services etc.

<comment><USER22> When it comes to the financial services, we can simply measure the cocaine consumption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The economy shrank at an _annualized rate_ of 2.9% over one quarter. That's 2.9% / 4 ~= 0.7% in Q1.

<comment><USER24> Could you explain this please?

<comment><USER25> "If every quarter this year was the same as this one, it would be a 2.9% decline for the year."

sp332 uses the ~= symbols for approximately equal because technically you can't just divide the percentage by four like that. 2.9%/4 = .725% (exactly), but technically four quarters at .725% shrink each would produce 100%-((100%-.725%)^4) for the year, which is a 2.869...% decrease, not exactly 2.9%. But for small percents being compounded a small number of times it is a decent approximation, in this case thoroughly dominated by measurement inaccuracies and noise levels; the small percentage and the small number of compoundings work together to keep the error very small.

<comment><USER23> Do you really think it's being compounded like that? I hadn't thought of that.

<comment><USER25> Uh... are you sure you didn't think of that? ;)

Anyways, for the reasons given above, it's indistinguishable. If the economy was changing rapidly enough for it to matter, well, since it can pretty much only shrink at sufficient rates to make a difference we'd probably all have better things to do than argue about compounding correctly...

But it is worth reminding people you can't do than in general, because it is easy to forget. See also the Rule of 72: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Since the comments so far have been only about the title, we edited the title to address these objections.

</comment><comment><USER27> Whose economy?

<comment><USER28> The article is from the Washington Post so you can probably assume it's the US economy.</comment></comment>


How Apple plans to sell a $10,000 Watch - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/11e6d64e-dfc2-11e4-a06a-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl

<comment><USER2> You have to subscribe to read the article.</comment>


On Types and Intent - <AUTHOR> http://jawaninja.com/programming/2017/10/29/on-types-and-intent <comment><AUTHOR> I really think Rich Hickey's talk has spurred some great conversations and blog posts. While I don't necessarily agree with this particular one entirely, it's lovely to see such a debate flowing in the Clojure and Haskell community :) There's also a Haskell thread on this article if people are interested[0]. And other previous discussions at

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/7awn3h/on_types_an...](https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/7awn3h/on_types_and_intent_clojure_and_haskell/)</comment>


Put Facebook's Free Basics Service on Hold, TRAI Tells Reliance Communications - <AUTHOR> http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/put-facebooks-free-basics-service-on-hold-trai-tells-reliance-communications/50291100 <comment><USER2> >"The question has arisen whether a telecom operator should be allowed to have differential pricing for different kinds of content. "

I though this issue was resolved?</comment>


Show HN: Check out my in-browser JavaScript MMO. [Requires HTML5 Browser] - <AUTHOR> http://stage.gomboloid.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Arrow keys move around, space to do stuff.</comment>